Published: 23 September 2008(GMT+10)

It dared to say that the scientific hierarchy was carrying out an academic persecution—of
anyone who questioned evolution. As proof, it interviewed scientists and science
teachers who had been sacked for supporting intelligent design (ID) or creationism.

Critics of the film claimed—without proof—that the scientists interviewed
were not fired because of their views on evolution.

Even a hint that your views on evolution might differ with those of the scientific
establishment is enough to force you out.

This week, in Britain, we have had the highest profile proof that even a hint that
your views on evolution might differ from those of the scientific establishment
is enough to force you out. Prof. Michael Reiss, an evolutionist and the Royal Society’s
director of education, resigned under pressure (given the push) within a couple
of days of merely suggesting that creationism and ID could be discussed in classrooms—even
if it was in order to explain why they were, in his view, wrong.2

Immediately, atheistic scientists called for him to be ousted, claiming he was wanting
creationism to be taught as an alternative to evolution. This was not his position,
so he was not pushed out because of what he actually said, but because other people
misrepresented what he had said. The Royal Society should have defended Reiss against
those who were twisting his words, but instead they gave in, thus saving their own
reputation for evolutionary orthodoxy.

Note, at the risk of repetition, that Reiss is an evolutionist himself. He was simply
saying it was OK for pupils to express their own opinions. He said, ‘There
is much to be said for allowing students to raise any doubts they have—hardly
a revolutionary idea in science teaching—and doing one’s best to have
a genuine discussion.’3

Despite his obvious support for evolution, Reiss received a torrent of abuse.

But doubts about evolution are not allowed. Scientific evidence that counters it
is ruled inadmissible. So, despite his obvious support for evolution, Reiss received
a torrent of abuse from other top-level scientists and members of the Society for
even suggesting that evolution could be debated.

Funny, I thought education was all about training children to think for themselves—not
brainwashing them. Yet creationists are the ones these scientists accuse of wanting
to brainwash students. For example, the notorious atheist Professor Richard Dawkins
has likened teaching children creationism to a form of ‘child abuse’.
Reiss had the temerity to suggest that Dawkins was wrong: ‘This is an inappropriate
and insulting use of the phrase “child abuse” as anybody who has ever
worked—as incidentally I have over many years—with children who have
been either sexually or physically abused, knows’3 … ’I don’t
think that Richard Dawkins would probably at the moment be an ideal teacher for
teaching classrooms where a high proportion of the children come from families that
hold creationism beliefs.’4

Photo www.expelledthemovie.com

The world’s most famous atheist, Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins regularly
vilifies all who oppose evolution as ‘stupid, ignorant or insane’.

But Dawkins doesn’t like being told he is wrong. In the BBC’s flagship
Panorama science programme this week, he once again spouted his vicious
view that anyone who disagrees with him on evolution is ‘ignorant, stupid
or insane.’

Hmmm. I doubt evolution. I studied biology up to A level, went on to get a 1st
class honours degree and won a prize for the best academic performance in my subject
at university. It’s pretty hard to do that if one is ignorant or stupid. So,
despite never having had any questioning of my mental health by my doctor, family
or acquaintances, I must be insane, according to Dawkins’ criterion in this
highly unscientific argument against creation.

Dr Michael Reiss

I’m not alone, either. Since 2001, over 700 Ph.D.-level scientists have signed
a ‘Dissent from Darwinism’ statement.5
And that’s just those who feel secure enough to express their dissent publicly.
Hundreds of others around the globe keep quiet because they fear for their jobs.
And on top of that, there are thousands of scientists around the world who not only
disagree with Darwinism but actively support creationism—see for example CMI’s
list of scientists alive
today who accept the biblical account of creation.

Coming back to the Royal Society’s move against Michael Reiss, let’s
look more closely at why he was given the elbow. Guess what? It turns out that Reiss
was not just a professor but a clergyman. As The Observer noted (14 September):
‘Reiss, an ordained Church of England minister, has since alleged he was misquoted.
Nevertheless, several Royal Society fellows say his religious views make him an
inappropriate choice for the post.’6

So now being a Christian makes someone ‘inappropriate’ for a scientific
post, despite brilliant scientific credentials!? Yet many secularists say Christians
are not being discriminated against in our society.

Richard Dawkins, who just happens to be another member of the Royal Society, said,
‘A clergyman in charge of education for the country’s leading scientific
organisation—it’s a Monty Python sketch.’7 Of course he fails to mention that there are other
leading members of the Royal Society who are eminent scientists as well as ordained
ministers. And that many clergymen were founders of the Society (even Darwin was
trained in theology).

Another Royal Society member, Sir Harry Kroto, had demanded Reiss’s head,
saying, ‘I warned the president of the Royal Society that his [Reiss’s]
was a dangerous appointment a year ago. I did not realise just how dangerous it
would turn out to be.’6

So, there you have it. Believing in God is ‘dangerous’. Ever since a
Christian was appointed to a high post in the Royal Society, the knives were out.
The atheist lobby was just looking for an opportunity to give him the heave-ho.
And if ‘Darwin’s Rottweiler’ Richard Dawkins was not pleased,
it seems the Society had to bow to his wishes.

The Independent reported that IVF pioneer Robert Winston criticised the
Royal Society for condemning someone who was only trying to engage with the growing
number of children in Britain who come from deeply religious families holding creationist
beliefs. ‘I fear that in this action the Royal Society may have only diminished
itself,’ said Lord Winston. ‘This is not a good day for the reputation
of science or scientists. This individual was arguing that we should engage with
and address public misconceptions about science—something that the Royal Society
should applaud.’8

I’ll end with this quote on evolution from Dr Russell Carlson, Professor of
Biochemistry and Molecular Biology at the University of Georgia:9

‘To limit teaching to only one idea is a disservice to students because it
is unnecessarily restrictive, dishonest, and intellectually myopic.’

References

Michael Reiss, Should creationism be a part of the science
curriculum? The BA Festival of Science, Liverpool, 11 September 2008, http://www1.the-ba.net/bafos/press/showtalk2.asp?TalkID=301 (link no longer active).
Return to text.

Ken E. wrote: “I just wanted to drop a note to express my gratitude for the kind of information you supply at the CMI web-site. I love science and find it thrilling to see how it may be used to glorify God and build faith in Him.” Glorify God in His creation. Support this site